Revisiting Word Trade Center 7

a reply to: OtherSideOfTheCoin

The only thing you need to know about WTC building 7 is that it collapsed after approx. 7 hours.

That is:

... after 7 hours building 7 collapsed.

a reply to: OratoryHeist

... after 7 hours building 7 collapsed.

Proof??

originally posted by: OtherSideOfTheCoin
a reply to: OratoryHeist

... after 7 hours building 7 collapsed.

Proof??

wtc collapses

At 9:59 am, the South Tower collapsed, 56 minutes after being struck.

The North Tower collapsed at 10:28 am, after burning for 102 minutes.

Approx. Seven hours later ...

At 5:20:33 pm EDT on September 11, 2001, 7 World Trade Center started to collapse, with the crumble of the east mechanical penthouse, while at 5:21:10 pm EDT the entire building collapsed completely.

Collapses started at approx. 10am ... collapses ended at approx. 5:20pm ... a difference of 7 hours.

Therefore:

After 7 hours building 7 collapsed.

Did you really need me to provide the proof?

a reply to: OratoryHeist

Think we may have had a misunderstanding I thought you were disputing the time the building collapsed according to the official narrative.

Originally posted by: cantonear1968

originally posted by: LaBTop
To this day, after the long years since that Historical day of 9/11/2001, NONE of the usual official story followers/believers have EVER turned up to confront my huge list of evidences that 9/11 was a bunch of big lies from the then existing US government institutions, and the following (installed by big banking) administration( s? ) .


A LONG EVIDENCE list exposing the whole 911 OFFICIAL LIE :

www.abovetopsecret.com...
Includes Graeme McQueen and Dr Rousseau's publications.

My 3 Signature links, for those ATS-GUESTS who can't see my signature links, since those can only be viewed by ATS members who are logged-in :

WISDOMwillWIN--->9/11=a LIE !--->EVIDENCE--->LIST

I invite anyone having read and absorbed that HUGE pack of evidence of a black operation on 9/11/2001, to prove me wrong on any of that evidence.

And again, as so many times before, I am waiting for serious debate on ANY of these items.
Especially on my WTC 7 seismic and photographic evidence that WTC 7 was DEMOLISHED as planned.

www.abovetopsecret.com...

LaBTop, I'm sorry but I'm missing what you are referring to as proof of explosives. It appears all you have done is copy/paste the seismic data from 9/11 and then claim this to be explosions going off. I have to point to one of the seismologists who recorded the event, and I am paraphrasing, but he states their work is NOT evidence of explosives. So unless I am missing something more substantive, and I apologize before hand if I am, I really don't see the data to support your conclusions.

It's quite obvious you did not thoroughly read my links, you left out my main reason to distrust the LDEO explanations of their own WTC 7 seismogram.
Namely the Cianca photo of the first sign of WTC 7 its collapse, timestamped by NIST, coupled to the LDEO timestamped seismogram of the WTC 7 collapse. Which is the whole crux of my reasoning.

Then you left out my two links to Graeme McQueen and Dr Rousseau's publications.
You show that you did not read them, especially not the Dr. Rousseau one.
He is a life long seismologist, and he gives some very good reasons why the explanation of the WTC 7 collapse seismogram by LDEO is pertinent false.

cantonear1968 : I have to point to one of the seismologists who recorded the event, and I am paraphrasing, but he states their work is NOT evidence of explosives.

That's Dr. Kim Young Won, from LDEO. Read the following paper, from a staunch opponent of LDEO's conclusions, a lifelong Dr. in seismology, Dr. Rousseau.

He offers the readers some very disturbing excerpts (especially for solid OS-trusters) of Dr. Rousseau's paper, to prove his statement, that explosives were the sources for all 5 seismograms recorded by LDEO at their Palisades station 34 km away from Manhattan :

Page 2 : Some authors have been puzzled in their analysis of signals recorded for the events at the World Trade Center, as the contradictions are significant. They are particularly intrigued by the presence of seismic "peaks" before the collapses.(See MacQueen, 2009) ( See also LT's seismic thesis, 2005/6 ).
This text focuses on the study of the seismic signals from Palisades (LDEO). The new interpretation presented here renders the assertions of the seismic analysis of the events at the WTC, as presented by the government in the NIST and other reports, null and void. On the contrary, all the documented evidence points to explosions as the source of the recorded seismic signals.
--snip--
Page 3 : Normally in this type of study the time of origin is known with great precision ( to the millisecond ), which is necessary in order to calculate the propagation speed of the different waves. Unfortunately, that precision is not possible for the events at the WTC. In this case, timing of the waves must be correlated as well as possibly utilizing video evidence.
(LT: exactly what I did in 2005/6 already for WTC 7 )
--snip--
Finally, the enormous indeterminacy of 2 seconds in the calculations attempting to fix the time of origin of each of the signals, admitted by the LDEO authors themselves (Kim et al., 2001), oblige us to view the official conclusions critically.
--snip--
(LT : Page 3 - 4, Read the whole chapter : Waveforms Attributed to the Planes Crashing Into the Towers. The propagation speeds of the signals for the 2 plane crashes are quite different, which indicate another source than a plane impact.)
Frequencies of waves generated by explosions are on the order of 1 Hertz (1 Hz, or one cycle per second) -- which is the case with the Rayleigh waves shown in figures 1a and 1b -- while those of crash impacts are above 10 Hz and are often around 100 Hz. Furthermore, the range of the recording instruments (0.6-5 Hz) cited does not allow for the recording of the high frequency waves that would be created by plane impacts. As to the theory of the oscillation of the Towers to explain these signals, as defended by Irvine (2001), it is inadequate because in such a case we would have had a "square" signal of long duration and a constant amplitude, while in actuality we observe a "bell-like" signal, representing a strong and brief explosion, which is particularly evident in the case of WTC2.

Given that it is geophysically impossible to have two different propagation speeds for two waves of the same type at the same frequency traveling the same path only a few minutes apart, one must bow to the evidence that the supposed origins of the recorded waves are incorrect, and that they are not linked to the plane crashes but to another origin.
The waveform data, far from suggesting the conclusion of LDEO that they were caused by plane impacts into the Towers, suggest instead two explosions with different time displacements from the moments of plane impact at each building. Further, the difference in the magnitude of the two signals can only be linked to differences in the volume of explosives and/or their distance from the surface.
--snip--
(LT : Read the whole chapter : Waveforms Attributed to the Collapse of the Towers, which explains that the registered seismic signals point to very different sources, not at all what LDEO concluded the next day already).
In the three cases, the bell-like form points to an impulsive source of energy, not percussion on the ground due to the fall of debris. The total mass and the average mass of individual building fragments were relatively small and fell to the ground over a period of more than ten seconds (which is a very long time in geophysics). Also note that the duration of a seismic signal does not tell anything about the source, in distinction from the amplitude and, particularly, the frequency.
--snip--
Page 6 : For the time of the impact of the plane into WTC1 furnished by the 9/11 Commission, 8.46.40 (9/11 Commission Report, p. 7; Ritter, 2002), there is a hiatus of 15 seconds between the plausible time of the origin of the Rayleigh wave based on the Palisades data and the time -- afterwards -- of the crash of the plane into WTC1 based on the ground radar data.

What else but an explosion could be the origin for this seismic wave in the absence of an earthquake? A similar discrepancy exists in the data for the seismic wave and impact times for WTC2.
--snip--
Also, the crash of the plane into WTC2 cannot be the cause for a camera, solidly on the ground and probably mounted to a tripod, which is filming WTC1 (see 911Blogger.com, 2006) to strongly shake one second before the fireball following this impact and shake again five seconds later: Only strong explosions can cause such shaking. This has been discussed at length by MacQueen (Journal of 9/11 Studies, 2009)
--snip--
(LT : read the whole chapter : SEISMIC WAVE-GENERATION FROM IMPACTS, COLLAPSES AND EXPLOSIONS)
Page 7 : Given that neither the crashes into the towers, nor their vibration, nor the fall of debris can be the source of the seismic waves registered 34 kilometers away, as well as the fact that the low frequencies of those waves could not have been generated by such phenomena, we must search for the actual causes of the waveforms observed. Only explosions could produce the waves observed but various possible explosive configurations must be considered.
--snip--
Page 10 : In the case of WTC1, the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) implicitly confirmed this scenario. They noted, "Review of videotape recordings of the collapse
taken from various angles indicates that the transmission tower on top of the structure began to move downward and laterally slightly before movement was evident at the exterior wall. This suggests that collapse began with one or more failures in the central core area of the building " (FEMA, World Trade Center Building Performance Study, Chapter 2).

Then read the CONCLUSION chapter on page 10 and 11. Its worth your time !

The reader can find more seismic evidence indicating how explosions show on seismograms from T.L. Holzer, Jim Hoffman, Craig T. Furlong and Gordon Ross, Graeme MacQueen in the References cited by Dr. Rousseau.